Latest Homophobic Bill Discriminates Against Straight Couples, Too

Another Hateful, Homophobic Piece Of “Religious Liberty” Legislation Just Passed In a State Legislature

When it comes to developing hateful homophobic legislation, the GOP is more innovative than Google and more groundbreaking than Tesla. Their newest “religious liberty” bill in Mississippi is a serious doozy, too; it’s so hateful against the LGBT community that it even ends up catching unmarried straight couples in its crossfire.

The GOP’s so-called “Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act” would allowprivate sector and public sector establishments and workers to openly discriminate by denying services, however essential or non-essential they may be, from LGBT citizens. It also allows someone to be fired over their sexuality or for being transgender, to refuse to marry a gay couple or participate in their wedding, or even to block a child’s adoption on religious grounds.

The bill comes to us from Mississippi (go figure) where, back in February, it passed through the House 80 to 39. Wednesday evening, it passed through the Mississippi Senate 31-17. It now heads back to the House, before then making its way to the desk of Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant.

The bill is reminiscent of one recently vetoed by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, which came after protestsfrom LGBT activists, corporations, and Georgian citizens. However, Mississippi’s homophobic bill goes above and beyond what Georgia’s “religious liberty” bill had proposed, with wider-sweeping definitions. So wide, in fact, that even straight couples would end up getting caught in its net.

The bill not only allows people to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but also claims that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage,” which means that any unmarried couple perceived as being sexually active, even straight couples, could also be denied services based purely on someone’s opinion that they might be having sex. In other words, a doctor could refuse to save an unwed patient’s life because they think that person has had sex, based on religious grounds (assuming that doctor played it fast and loose with their Hippocratic Oath, of course).

However, the homophobic bill does assume that only Christians would ever use its clauses. Should the bill become law, a Muslim business owner could use it to deny service to Christian women who refuse to wear a hijab on their property. It’s safe to assume the law would come under fire from the GOP clowns who wrote it the moment something like that happened. But that’s the GOP for you… quick to legislatively hate, and slow to recognize the long-term ramifications of their efforts toward wide-sweeping bigotry.

Matt Terzi is a political satirist and essayist from Binghamton, New York, who has written for some of the most prominent satire publications in the country. He’s now moving into more “serious” subject matter, without losing touch with his comedic roots